Tom Watson: There is great merit in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), have raised the matter in the House, and I agree to ask my officials to look at extending the scheme.

Hilary Armstrong: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that I would encourage the Charity Commission, although I would not want to interfere in its independence, to take note of all our debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
	Part 2 of the Bill is divided into 11 chapters, each of which deals with some aspect of the regulation of charities. Chapter 1 of part 2 converts the Charity Commission into a corporate body. Currently, its functions are discharged by the five charity commissions. The chapter also contains reforms to the commission, modernising its constitution, governance and powers to build on its current effectiveness. We are giving the commission five new statutory objectives and are requiring it to report annually to Parliament on the extent to which it has met its objectives. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and others about the commission's relationship to Parliament.
	We are also putting the commission under a duty to have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, including the principle of proportionality under which a regulator's action must be proportionate to the risk posed by the problem with which it deals. We included that Joint Committee recommendation after listening carefully to the debate in the other place. In fact, the commission already operates in accordance with that principle, and recent surveys have recorded the high levels of satisfaction among charities that have dealt with it.
	The commission is and will remain a non-ministerial department. We believe that its independence from Ministers is of paramount of importance for the proper regulation of charities and for public confidence in the regulatory system. The Bill expressly prevents any Minister from controlling or directing the commission in its regulatory work. Those changes are to ensure that we have a Charity Commission that is independent and emboldened but accountable, regulated and effective.
	Chapter 2 of part 2 creates a new charity tribunal. At the moment, anyone wanting to challenge a regulatory decision or order made by the commission must take it to the High Court, which is daunting and prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of charities. The new tribunal will provide a simpler, quicker and cheaper route through which to challenge the commission and improve its accountability.
	Chapter 3 of part 2 deals with the registration of charities. There are three main changes. First, the Bill raises from £1,000 to £5,000 the income threshold above which a charity must register with the Charity Commission. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill found that there was a consensus for a registration threshold of £5,000. Charities whose income falls below the threshold will be able to register with the commission if they so wish, which will give more freedom to smaller, local charities.
	Secondly, the Bill brings the arrangements for excepted charities into line with those for other charities. Excepted charities are those which fall within the regulatory powers of the commission but which are not currently required to register with it. They include some charities within the Church of England and other Christian Churches, and some charities within the armed forces. Requiring such charities to register will not significantly increase the regulatory burden on them but will rightly increase the transparency and accountability of those charities, which have exactly the same entitlement to tax relief as registered charities. To ease the transition from excepted to registered status, we are starting by requiring only those with an income of more than £100,000—the top 10 per cent. or so—to register. As we have said, we expect gradually to bring more of those charities into registration in future.
	Thirdly, the Bill introduces new arrangements for the so-called exempt charities, which will include the universities, other places of further and higher education, some registered social landlords and some museums and galleries. Exempt charities are those that are currently outside the Charity Commission's supervisory and monitoring powers. They enjoy the status and fiscal benefits that other charities have, but there is currently no mechanism for monitoring their compliance with charity law. The Bill changes that.
	When a regulator is already in place—for example in the case of registered social landlords who are regulated by the Housing Corporation—that regulator will take on responsibility for monitoring compliance with charity law. When no suitable regulator is already in place, the Charity Commission will take on that responsibility. The proposed new regulators have been identified following extensive discussion with the relevant regulators and charities, and will be prescribed by regulation. The purpose of the changes is to ensure that modern and effective regulation extends right across the charity sector, not just to some parts of it.
	Chapter 5 modernises the Charity Commission's regulatory powers. It includes new powers for the commission to suspend or remove trustees and employees from membership of their charities. Chapters 6 and 7 raise the income threshold above which charities must have their accounts professionally audited, releasing about 3,000 charities from that obligation.
	A development that we believe will be particularly useful in the longer term is the creation by chapter 8 of part 2 of a new legal form called the charitable incorporated organisation, or CIO. That could bring significant deregulatory benefits by allowing charities to take an incorporated form without having to submit to regulation under company law as well as charity law. A charity in CIO form will be treated and regulated as a charity, but not as a company. Existing charities will be able to take on CIO form, and new charities will be able to start up in CIO form.
	Perhaps three quarters of a million people in England and Wales are trustees of charities, giving their time, commitment and expertise, unpaid, to the service of others. Trusteeship is a demanding yet personally rewarding endeavour. We want to encourage more and a greater diversity of people to be trustees of charities.

David Drew: I am surprised that the fiscal regime for charities is not addressed in the Bill and I hope that we will be able to take account of that in consideration of the Bill. In particular, the question of whether VAT can be recovered is crucial in determining whether charities in the social and health care area are effective in spending their money. Is that an issue that the redefinition of charities will help to address? Discussions with the Treasury just seem to lead to even greater opacity.

Tom Levitt: I was present at the conference at which the Prime Minister gave his speech on Thursday, as was the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband). The Prime Minister's announcements, of which that was one example—we are talking about something that is in addition to the valuable work that the voluntary sector already does in the health service—were widely welcomed not just by people from the third sector and the voluntary sector, but by everyone at that conference, including partners in the private sector and the local government sector. It was a good conference with a positive outcome that will take us forward in a way that the hon. Gentleman's Government never managed to do in the past.

Andrew Turner: I am not sure that I was talking about any kind of nightmare at all. I was saying that there is a great opportunity for the voluntary and charity sectors.
	The problem is that seven out of 13 Departments still do not even keep records of whether funding is agreed before the beginning of the financial year, or of whether their contracts run for more than one year, despite the advice of the Public Accounts Committee. Of those Departments that kept records, the Northern Ireland Office was best—I congratulate it on that—but the Home Office, which was the sponsoring Department for the voluntary sector, was worst.
	The Bill is important for the charity sector and the people and purposes that that sector serves. It has already been thoroughly scrutinised. It was one of the first Bills to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and it has twice been rigorously examined in another place. However, several provisions remain that will need to be debated and, perhaps, amended in Committee if the Bill is to allow the sector to meet its potential.
	The most contentious matter is clearly the public benefit test. Since the 17th century—and in codified form since 1891—there has been a requirement to demonstrate public benefit for most charitable purposes. However, as the Minister said, there has been a presumption of public benefit for the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion and the advancement of education. The Bill will abolish that presumption, so any organisation with a charitable purpose will have to demonstrate a public benefit. The Bill provides for a tortuous and near-incomprehensible formula. Ministers have reassured Parliament that although that will mean that our case law will be allowed to develop, the public benefit test will remain unchanged.
	Three groups seem to want to the public benefit test to become more onerous. The first is represented by the Charity Commission, the NCVO and, rather surprisingly, the British Red Cross. The second is a group of lawyers and other who think that although the law on charities has never been the same in England as in Scotland, there should be a post-devolution situation in which Scotland drives England. I was grateful to the Minister for pointing out the objective that the three legal systems should be compatible, but not identical. The third group is the few Government Back Benchers who are chaffing at their failure to maintain the iron grip of mediocrity on Britain's state schools, with the support, for some reason, of the illiberal democrats to my left. Their motive is essentially to strike down independent schools, which have shown that pupils can get a better education than they could have done from the state. They ignore the damage done to voluntary hospitals and to charitable retirement homes. They do not seem to have thought of the effect on universities, all of which have always charged fees.

Andrew Turner: I am concerned about the impact on schools such as Shrewsbury, but I must say that I am far more concerned about the impact on small and much less expensive independent schools that benefit from charitable status and fulfil a public benefit by providing education.
	I find it inconceivable that a charity whose objective is the relief of poverty would not, prima facie, be providing a public benefit. Can any Member suggest that a trust for the relief of poverty would not be providing such a benefit?  [ Interruption. ] The Chancellor of the Duchy says "No", but money spent on proving that what is provided is a public benefit, or on adjudicating on that question, is surely money wasted.
	Secondly, removing that presumption from organisations for the advancement of religion is absurd and opens up a huge debate about whether religious activities have a public benefit. I am talking not about the activities that flow from religion, as most of them are covered by other charitable purposes, but about directly religious activities such as prayer and moral leadership.

Alan Milburn: It is an unusual event, at least nowadays, that a Government Bill receives an almost universal welcome, but that is what this Bill by and large has received from charities, from organisations representing charities, from commentators, from the media, even from many lawyers, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). Given the consensus around the Bill, I was beginning to wonder whether there was something wrong with it. But having heard the hon. Gentleman's pretty extraordinary speech, I am beginning to believe that most things about it are right.
	As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was kind enough to say earlier, I was privileged enough to be able to chair the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee dealing with the draft Bill some two years ago, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the officials and advisers who served us admirably on the Joint Committee, and to those colleagues on both sides of both Houses, who, without exception, were a joy to serve with and to chair.
	I like to think that the report that we produced, in keeping with the consensus around the Bill, was also pretty consensual, in tone and outcome. There is only one small caveat, which is that I cannot be held personally responsible for all the conclusions because, sadly, I had to leave the Committee before it finalised its conclusions in order to rejoin the Cabinet, and for the rather less consensual purpose of co-ordinating the Labour party's general election campaign. I like to think that the Joint Committee was a successful endeavour, and I like to think that the general election campaign was reasonably successful too.
	I remain a real convert to the pre-legislative process. I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend said. That process is far less partisan and far more open to analysis and debate, and, as a consequence, makes, where it is possible, for far better law. Indeed, I should like to see it go much further in this House and in the other place.
	The fact that the Government also took on board so many of the Committee's deliberations is testimony to Ministers' willingness to listen in order to improve the Bill's content. I welcome in particular the decisions to guarantee the independence of the Charity Commission; to improve the proposed licensing arrangements for public collections, to which my right hon. Friend referred; to consolidate, importantly, charities' legislation, once the Bill has successfully completed its passage through the House; and finally, and very importantly, my right hon. Friend's preparedness to review the performance of the Bill in the real world five years following its completion. Each of those changes has undoubtedly improved the Bill, as will have the detailed scrutiny that it has already received from the very many charity experts in another place.
	There are three principal reasons why the Bill is needed. The first is the necessity to modernise what is at best outdated and at worst pretty chaotic charity law. 1601 was no doubt a very fine year. It was for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. She managed to thwart a rebellion led by the Earl of Essex. It was a less successful year for the Earl of Essex because he was beheaded. I do not say in any way, shape or form to my hon. Friends that I am looking for such a measure to deal with latter day rebels, although I bet that on occasion my right hon. Friend when she was Chief Whip would have welcomed that for certain of my hon. Friends.

Alan Milburn: Thank you to my supposed hon. Friend, or whatever he is. I will come to precisely that point in a few moments. When the Joint Committee was taking evidence, we heard about some good examples of meaningful partnership between the private and state sector, particularly in education. To be honest, we also heard about some pretty poor examples, where the lack of partnership between the sectors was more evident. In large part, the test of public benefit, which some have decried, can help to address the deficiencies and to realise the potential of partnerships. I will return to that theme in a moment or two.
	It seems to me that, if we can get the framework right, the voluntary and charitable sector could be doing far more than it does. I have never really understood, for example, why voluntary or charitable organisations should not be able to run more welfare to work or child care programmes. I have never understood why cancer charities should not be given the opportunity to run more cancer services. I would certainly like to see us building, as a society and a country, on the pioneering work undertaken by an organisation such as the Royal National Institute for the Deaf in negotiating substantial discounts on behalf of NHS patients on the supply of digital hearing aids and then going on to work with NHS hearing services in order to ensure that those aids can be properly provided and fitted to the deaf or hard of hearing.
	My argument, unlike that of the Conservative party, is not that charities can or should replace the state, but that the public sector, the voluntary sector and the charitable sector should be partners rather than rivals. While charities can do much more, there is much that the state, for reasons of efficiency and equity, has to do. In truth, in this era of worldwide terror, mass migration and global competition in which we live, only Governments can provide security to citizens. Modern Governments, however, have another equally critical role—to empower more people so that the opportunities that some have always enjoyed are redistributed more widely in our society and it is here, I believe, that the charitable and voluntary sector comes into its own.
	The potential is already there, but I believe that realising it will require a new drive to bring in the sector from the cold. That depends, first, on the Government providing fair rules and fair funding. A good start has already been made, but Ministers recognise that there is more to do. Secondly, it depends on the sector—charities and voluntary organisations alike—putting its own house in order. Charitable organisations, just like private or public sector organisations, cannot expect to get something for nothing. The Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) is quite right that, to get a better funding regime, charitable organisations need to demonstrate the added value that they can bring to our key public services. They need to be clearer about what they are promising and what they can deliver and they need to get tough about the value of their work, not just its cost.
	Thirdly, charitable organisations need a system of regulation and law that allows them to demonstrate that they are fit for purpose as they broaden their role and provide more services. That is where the Bill, in my view, becomes so important, but has a delicate balancing act to perform. On the one hand, it needs to assure the public that there is probity in the charitable sector as its role expands. On the other, it needs to avoid the temptation of over-prescription and burdensome regulation. It is worth recalling that, according to one survey at least, charities come second only to churches in the public's league table of trustworthy organisations. They have a trustworthy rating of 48 per cent. By contrast, Government have a rating of 6 per cent.

Alan Milburn: We addressed that point in questioning the various representatives of the private school sector who appeared before the Committee. I am not here to defend private schools or otherwise; what interests me is whether the public receive benefit in exchange for the expenditure that we make on their behalf. That is my fundamental concern.
	If properly applied, the public benefit test could drive forward partnerships between the private and the public sectors and, in particular, between private and state schools. I was very taken with the evidence to the Committee of one private school head teacher when he argued that the new public benefit test will accelerate the trend for the rest to follow the lead of the best. Indeed, the Independent Schools Council has welcomed the Bill and its general secretary, Mr. Jonathan Shephard, told the Joint Committee that he agreed with the proposition that the new test should be used as a lever to get more schools to provide more public benefit.
	And here we need to be certain that the Bill will do what it purports to do. On that count—notwithstanding strong differences of opinion on the question of the charitable status of individual schools and hospitals—the Joint Committee had grave concerns. Those concerns were accentuated by evidence from the Charity Commission that the public benefit test as defined in the draft Bill would have no impact on the charitable status of private schools or hospitals. That led us to conclude that
	"while a detailed statutory definition of public benefit would be too inflexible, nonetheless there is a need for a more explicit definition of public benefit in connection with the Bill."
	We went on to recommend that a set of principles should be included in the Bill or in government guidance. New clause 4 requires the Charity Commission to issue such guidance which it has already helpfully drawn up in draft form.
	The challenge now for Ministers is to assure themselves and the House that the clause and the draft guidance are clear enough in setting the framework for the Charity Commission to guarantee public benefit; otherwise there is not much point in introducing a new test. In evidence to the Joint Committee, the Government told us that the public benefit test was intended to have teeth. Providing it bites, that test can guarantee that all charities—including private schools and private hospitals—do what only some currently do: provide public benefit that is direct not indirect, high not low, and meaningful rather than tokenistic. That after all is the direction of travel shared in common by all political parties, the Government, the opposition on the Joint Committee, charities, organisations representing charities, individual schools and the Independent Schools Council.
	Getting the public benefit test right is central to guaranteeing public confidence in what charities do. Charities do good. Few if any Members of Parliament or the public would disagree with that proposition. But in a world where accountability is tougher, scrutiny is greater, and the role that charities play is potentially wider, the assumption of good is simply not good enough. It has to be proved. I welcome the Bill because it provides a golden opportunity for charities to do just that. It will make a huge difference to the work of charities and the wider charitable and voluntary sector, and to each and every one of the communities that we represent.

Martin Horwood: I must declare some non-pecuniary interests, as a member of the Institute of Fundraising, a patron or friend of various local charities in Gloucestershire, and a trustee of the UK's leading blindness research charity, Fight for Sight. That is not the first plug we have had for a very worthwhile charity in this debate and I am sure that it will not be the last.
	I also welcome the new ministerial team and congratulate them on bringing this Bill before us after so long a wait. Credit is also due to the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who contributed to the long periods of effective scrutiny and the welcome degree of consensus that has been achieved—at least, until today—although I cannot go along with the rather extreme penalties, such as beheading, that the right hon. Member appeared to recommend for some of the dissenters. In any event, I pay tribute to the Joint Committee's work.
	This Bill has been so long in preparation that I remember briefing voluntary sector colleagues on the new Charities Bill that I thought was to become law imminently long before I was even a candidate for Parliament, let alone an MP. Now that we are finally debating it in the Commons, I hope that with the help of a sufficiently brisk and efficient Committee stage, we might just see it complete its passage before the summer recess. There will certainly be groans of disappointment from my former colleagues if we allow it to be delayed by another three months. However, all credit to the ministerial team for having rescued it from the long grass at all.
	To extend the horticultural analogy, Ministers have entered an area of public policy that is like a huge garden, worth billions of pounds in income, as the Minister said, and which employs 600,000 people, according to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. It is a garden in which Ministers are just visiting gardeners, and they would do well to tread carefully. The garden has diverse species of many colours and sizes. It has plants as different in size, function and characteristics as daisies and oak trees: from Cancer Research UK, with its £240 million income and huge marketing budget, to wonderful but hard-pressed charities in my constituency, such as Cheltenham Open Door and Cheltenham Community Projects; from democratic membership organisations with large volunteer bases to highly specialist trusts; and from charities that only sell Christmas cards to important service providers whose fees pay for the education, care and support of large numbers of the most vulnerable in our society. This Bill must look after the interests of them all.
	If left unattended, the garden will not wither—probably quite the reverse—but weeds will creep in, often looking pretty at first, but threatening the future reputation of the whole. However, if the garden is cultivated and nurtured, it will flourish, grow and produce enormous benefits for us all.
	With this Bill, the Government show every sign of not charging in with a mechanical digger, as they have in a few other areas of legislation and policy. The careful and consultative approach has brought them the overwhelming support of the voluntary sector, and I am pleased to say that the Bill continues to enjoy the full support of the Liberal Democrats, too.
	There are many benefits of a new Charities Bill. I highlighted them to my colleagues all those years ago, and I still commend them to the House today. They include many of the practical steps that the Minister outlined, which will make easier the roles of trustees, finance directors, company secretaries, and treasurers in particular. I am sure that those measures will be much appreciated.
	We all have delicate balances to strike between the voluntary foundation of the best charities and the professionalism demanded of them in today's risk-averse world, and between the need to regulate and avoid the misuse of publicly donated funds and the risk of over-burdensome red tape. Public opinion will punish us either way if we get those balances wrong.
	Public opinion is also a strong factor in the Bill's fundraising provisions, which we might have expected to be more contentious. However, I am pleased that the Institute of Fundraising fully supports them as proportionate and equitable. As a paid-up member still, I shall follow my institute's lead in the hope that the provisions do not impact unduly on the income of national charities or increase too much the bureaucracy with which they have to deal.
	I was a little upset by the Minister's reference to chugging. I do not know whether she knows this, but it is short for charity mugging. It is an insulting reference to hard-working paid and unpaid charity fundraisers, and I hope that she will avoid it in future.
	From fundraising to campaigning, the new heads of charity recognise among other things the importance of what might be called campaigning functions, such as the prevention as well as the relief of poverty, the advancement of human rights and the promotion of religious or racial harmony, equality and diversity. That is in line with previous Cabinet Office policy advice that charities should not keep the experience of their front-line work to themselves, but should be encouraged to share it with legislators and decision makers such as ourselves, and, where appropriate, campaign for change. It is right that we no longer ask charities to witness poverty, injustice, ill health or cruelty, but not to speak out about the fundamental causes of those ills.
	To put my point into new Labour-speak, the direction of travel is broadly good. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer in the Chamber, that the Bill, perhaps out of necessity because it is not a Finance Bill, leaves out a big issue—VAT. The Minister was worried that including such a provision would mean a bill for half a billion pounds, but that is exactly the bill faced by charities at present because VAT is not recoverable. We cannot address that question in this debate but we might find a way of doing so in Committee, perhaps through the reporting measures proposed in part 4—no spending commitment implied.
	The new heads of charity will provide a level playing field as between the educational, religious and poverty charities, mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), which did not previously have to pass a public benefit test under various Charities Acts, and the vast number of organisations that had to pass such a test. They range from St. John Ambulance, which saves lives in local communities, to Survival International, which works for the rights of tribal peoples around the world. It is right, as Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, that
	"all charities should have to meet a public benefit test, no matter what their purposes".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2005; Vol. 673, c. 154.]
	The question of whether we should add clarification and guidance to the Bill's provisions on public benefit is already generating a lot of hot air outside this place. On the one hand, the Independent Schools Council is lobbying hard against any strengthening of the public benefit test, and schools such as Fettes college in Scotland are talking about the "politics of envy". On the other side, a former aide to Cherie Booth, writing in  The Guardian this weekend, predicted "class war" headlines. So far, so unhelpful.
	Today, we witnessed the astonishing spectacle of the official Conservative spokesman setting out in the House of Commons an even more reactionary position than the one advocated by his noble Friends in another place. In effect, he argued for the insertion of a special status that would require a public benefit test of St. John Ambulance but not of Eton college. That is an astonishing position. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware of what his hon. Friend is proposing, but it does not sound like the new model Conservative party to me.
	The Minister gave reassuring responses to various interventions about the bodies and organisations that would not be affected by the Bill's public benefit test, but as the right hon. Member for Darlington said, it would seem desirable that such brave new legislation should make some kind of difference to somebody in terms of the public benefit test. I shall, therefore, clarify the Liberal Democrat position, which has been consistent throughout the Bill's long history. Along with the NCVO and the Charity Commission in some of its guidance, we believe that the current public benefit test leaves the law in a muddle and that the Bill needs to be strengthened in that respect. I draw the attention of Members to the comments signed by Stuart Etherington of the NCVO, David Harker of Citizens Advice, Michael Lake of Help the Aged and John Low of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. They say:
	"Clarity is vital if we are to secure a level playing field for all charities operating today and for others being formed. If the public believes access to a charity's services is unduly restricted because of high fees, or for any other reason, the case for charity will be undermined. We hope that MPs will support our call for clarity and put this vital question beyond doubt."
	The Bill does not yet do that.
	An interesting new law has been passed in Scotland. Adopting its terminology, which was supported by Labour and Liberal Democrat Ministers north of the border, would seem to have much to commend it, not least the obvious advantage of consistency. That is not compulsory, but it is clearly desirable for charities that operate both north and south of the border.
	The ISC is simultaneously lobbying against such clarification and advising its members on how to respond to the tightening of the law on public benefit. Its 2005 briefing on the subject stated:
	"Schools should, therefore, be fully prepared to demonstrate public benefit as early as possible, and not later than the autumn of 2007. ISC advice for the past year has consistently been that schools should audit the public benefit they provide, and should be prepared to think imaginatively of ways of extending public benefit."
	I could not put it better myself—exactly the outcome that Liberal Democrats seek.
	Today, I consulted Tim Hastie-Smith, the headmaster of Dean Close school, an independent school in my constituency, who told me that
	"schools are big money-making ventures whether they like it or not. How can we look the public in the face as charities unless we are doing things that are obviously charitable in their intent?"
	Before the Minister nods too much, I should tell her that Mr. Hastie-Smith told me that he supported strengthening the public benefit test and thought that Dean Close school had nothing to fear from it. I suspect that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is also no longer in his place, might even support that, judging by the sentiment of his intervention.
	Having enjoyed Dean Close's excellent theatre facilities—not because I pay fees, but as the parent of a local four-year-old in a wonderful community-based dance production—I fully understand Mr. Hastie-Smith's confidence. He also cited the example of Christ's Hospital, which has the kind of endowment fund that the Charity Commission might rightly look twice at in any charity, but which has such a good record of charitable activity that it too would be at no risk from a reasonable public benefit test of the kind that we would support.

Martin Horwood: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that we may be citing different parts of what the Charity Commission has said. I was not citing guidance relating to the effects of the Bill; I was referring to guidance advising charities on whether there is clarity in the current situation, which there is not. I still support taking the opportunity to add clarity.
	In case there is any doubt about the effect that our amendments would have, or in case any party is thinking of caricaturing them as intending some kind of bonfire of charitable status, I should say that we will aim to table amendments in Committee that will make it absolutely clear that, just as fee-charging special schools or carers support charities should not be caught by a stiffer test, nor should independent educational establishments that follow the ISC's guidance on imaginatively seeking ways to increase their public benefit. As the first ever friend of the country's leading independent specialist college for disabled young people, the National Star college, based in and next to my constituency, I would be in trouble if I suggested any measure that threatened its charitable status.
	The last area that I will touch on are the role and powers of the new improved Charity Commission established by the Bill and of its new overseer, the charity tribunal. I use this opportunity to restore a measure of consensus on this side of the House by supporting the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight when he suggested the establishment of a suitors' fund to reduce the risk to charitable funds in approaching the charity tribunal. There is much to recommend that and I support it. Hon. Members should pay tribute to the outstanding individuals, such as Geraldine Peacock, who have led or served as charity commissioners, but we must also acknowledge the dissatisfaction with the practical results of the Charity Commission's action—and occasionally inaction—which has occasionally run high. I am afraid that I have my own examples of that from personal experience.
	While I was the director of fundraising of the Alzheimer's Society, a new charity called the Alzheimer's Foundation was set up. It was registered by the Charity Commission, but it had no background in Alzheimer's research, no volunteer or supporter base and no donor base. However, it suddenly started running an extremely large and—to us—threatening fundraising campaign through which it sought large amounts of public funds. It turned out that the charity had a close association with an American direct marketing agency. We believed that that agency loaned the trustees of the charity the money to establish the fundraising campaign, and that the donations that resulted from it were used to pay back the American agency. That was obviously good business for the American agency, but extremely poor value for the donors whose money had overwhelmingly been used to pay a business, rather than for Alzheimer's research, as they believed.
	At the time, we approached the Advertising Standards Authority, the Charity Commission and, on the side, the  Daily Mirror. The most useful of the three was the ASA, which came down on the organisation like a ton of bricks and stopped the misleading claims that it was making in the public arena. The  Daily Mirror was pretty useful, too, but I am afraid that the Charity Commission considered the matter for a long time before deciding that there was no problem. It was only when we approached the then Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and she took up the matter—I am grateful to her—that we miraculously got a result from the Charity Commission. There are thus weaknesses in the regulatory regime.
	While there is such disquiet about the role of the charity commissioners at present, the Government want to extend the number of charities to be registered, add a new status of charitable incorporated organisations, which will be regulated by the Charity Commission, rather than by Companies House, and add new powers and responsibilities to advise and guide charities. A Government who want to do that without suggesting how the organisation will cope with its expanded responsibilities are pretty brave. Each of those measures is welcome in itself, but nothing will damage faster the critically important public confidence and trust to which the Minister rightly referred than the creation of a regulatory regime that—however accidentally—turns out to be less effective than the one we have at present. We will have to pay careful attention to that matter in Committee, but it should not disturb the healthy cross-party consensus in support of such a worthwhile and long-overdue Bill.

Alun Michael: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to her new role. I also congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), on becoming the first Minister with responsibility right across the third sector. I warn him that that is not only a big opportunity, but a big challenge. It is a pleasure to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I congratulate him on his contribution to both the scrutiny of the Bill and the general election campaign.
	I want to develop three points. First, we should celebrate the arrival of the Bill and engage keenly with the outstanding issues of detail, such as the meaning of "public benefit". Secondly, we should see the Bill in the context of the wider third sector of value-driven organisations. Thirdly, we should accept that there is no quick fix. The Bill should be seen as being about not the Government or Parliament laying down the law, but relationships in the sector, among sectors and between the Government and the third sector. Like all relationships, they will need hard work and a lot of give and take if they are to be successful, as has been illustrated during the debate.
	We should celebrate the Bill as a staging post in the Government's support for charities and the wider voluntary and community sector. It is worth recording, with some pride, that the Labour party has taken the sector seriously as a partner in a way in which no previous Government have done. The Prime Minister's interest goes back to his time as shadow Home Secretary, when he launched what became the leader's review of the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector. That culminated in "Building the Future Together", which was published in 1997, and the introduction of the compact arrangements. Those arrangements were themselves only the start of a journey that was stimulated by both the review, which I led, and the sector's own work, which was led by Professor Nicholas Deakin. Indeed, I welcome the development of compact plus as the next stage of the process.
	The Chancellor has always emphasised the importance of values. He introduced many improvements on the treatment and encouragement of charities. I am especially excited by the way in which he has built work on the role of the whole third sector into preparations for the forthcoming comprehensive spending review by both engaging the sectors in that work and creating connections across Whitehall. It is in that context that the long-awaited Bill, as several hon. Members have described it, is important.
	The lack of modern legislation on charities partly reflects a reasonable fear of getting things wrong. It also reflects the sensible judgment that the matter is not just for the Government and that a top-down approach will not work. However, a lot has happened in 404 years. The existing law is old and case law is too rare to cover all contemporary issues. There are thus matters that must be grasped by the Government and Parliament, and the need to modernise charity law is inescapable. However, that is a difficult matter with which to deal, as our debate has demonstrated, so introducing even such a carefully crafted Bill, which has emerged from long consultation, deliberation and scrutiny, must be seen as an act of courage by Ministers. The way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made her speech showed that she knows how courageous she is being.
	Although removing the presumption of charitable status in favour of the concept of public benefit is clearly greatly welcome and a sensible minimum step towards modernising the law, it is courageous. It is naive to think in the modern world that all education bodies, or bodies formed with religious aims or the aim of alleviating poverty, are automatically charitable and working in the public interest. However, we need to be clear about what we mean by the public interest test, which is a job for Parliament and, especially, the Committee to which I hope that the Bill will be committed. The last thing that we want is a tightly-worded definition that becomes a straitjacket, so the idea that the Charity Commission should work on the concept and consult widely is probably sensible, as long as we are clear about the general terms of reference for that work and the commission listens to parliamentarians, too.
	Our constituency work gives many of us a useful insight into the situation in addition to any expert knowledge or experience that we may have, as has been illustrated in our debate. However, my hesitation arises from a past experience with the Charity Commission that is not too far removed from that of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). During the Thatcher era, the commission listened to people on the right wing of politics who suggested that charities should be banned from campaigning and seeking changes to the law or the policies of Government. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) tried to portray those people's pernicious activity as being against illegal activity, but it was no such thing—it was outrageous. How can organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society, to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham referred, NCH, Mind, Age Concern or even a local citizen's advice bureau choose between providing a service to those whom they exist to help and arguing the case for those with no voice of their own? Those people were attempting to muzzle charities.
	Of course, charities should not undertake party politics, but charitable judgments are inevitably also political judgments. That is why so many of us came from community and voluntary action into political action and why we MPs generally know where the line needs to be drawn. On that occasion, the commissioner, to his credit, listened to cross-party concerns, and the subsequent guidance made it clear that charities could campaign, but that such campaigning had to be undertaken in the context of an organisation's charitable objectives. That guidance made all sorts of sense because it said that charities could campaign on the issues that they existed to promote.
	Another example of common sense is the list of 12 specific charitable purposes, plus a catch-all, that is set out in the Bill. Again, the matter has been sensitive. I especially welcome the inclusion of animal welfare on the list because it is something for which I have long argued. There is always a danger of the reactionary argument that animals are not part of the public, but the way in which we treat those with which we share the planet has long been recognised as an important measure of our humanity and is thus a proper charitable purpose. The inclusion of animal welfare puts that beyond doubt in respect of charities. They, like schools and like organisations that are concerned with saving life, will have to show how they deliver the public benefit. However, the Bill is about the vehicle for providing public benefit, so it is a mistake to get bogged down in political detail in respect of public schools or any other political issue.
	I hope that the Committee will grasp the issue of public benefit intelligently. Let us explore what those words mean and, from the debate on that, give clarity to the Charity Commission in developing the concept further, but let us also try to avoid being too prescriptive. The Scottish definition, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, has some merit. It is a brave effort, but even it might turn out in the long term to be a straitjacket, and we must avoid such dangers, otherwise we will return to charitable legislation year after year, which would be a mistake.

Alun Michael: There are organisations, such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, that would like there to be something in the Bill but start to express concern as soon as a particular wording is looked at, including the Scottish wording. It is very difficult to change anything that is in primary legislation, but if there is a debate that looks into the concept of public benefit and develops the idea so that it is clear what Parliament means, and that idea is then developed further by the Charity Commission, we may be able to deliver the consensus that we all want, and to strengthen it.
	I am coming to the conclusion that there is no a quick fix in terms of the wording, although I am sure that we will all applaud if the right words are found. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicated that if there is perfect wording, she will welcome that. However, it will be the worst of all possible worlds if we get the wrong wording and we are then trapped by that and do not have the flexibility to develop.
	The other argument I would make is that the purpose of Government and Parliament must be to enable rather than to constrict. The issue under discussion affects not only the public sector and the responsibilities of Government, but the active engagement of citizens. We therefore need to be very careful, and the more flexible the definition, the better, provided that we all work on getting clarity and consensus in the delivery of the definition and what it means in practice.
	In its briefing to Members last week, the Charity Commission indicated its willingness to listen to the debate and to engage with parliamentarians as they get on with the development of the guidance to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham referred. I suspect that that would be a very constructive way to proceed—saying neither, "No, we are not interested," nor, that we must define too closely in law the nature of the public benefit test.
	Having set up a number of bodies such as those under discussion over the years, I very much welcome the ending of dual registration as a charity and as a company limited by guarantee. That has worked, but it is not logical and charitable incorporation completes a range of options, along with the community interest company, which I had the pleasure of bringing into effect last year, and models such as industrial and provident societies. That will make much more sense for social and charitable entrepreneurs in the future, because they will be able to choose the model that best suits what they want to do, rather than having to artificially constrain the nature of their organisation.
	As I said, my second point is to set this debate in the context of wider developments in the third sector. When I undertook the review of the Government's relationship with the sector, I often referred to the voluntary and community sector as a loose and baggy monster. That is the term that Henry James used to describe the novel, but in my mind, when applied to the voluntary sector, it describes a friendly, creative and dynamic creature, and it indicates the impossibility of neatly defining a sector that includes major grant-giving trusts, major service providers, quirky specialist organisations, universities, museums, many of the types of organisations that have been referred to in the debate, and a whole host of local and even neighbourhood organisations. Indeed, the scope and variety of the sector leads to many people extrapolating from contact with one or two charities and thinking that they know it all. In truth, none of us knows it all; we never can, and we never will.
	I suspect that that is a particular problem in Whitehall, where the language used is frequently wrong—and language does matter. All too often, the best intentions expressed in the wrong words give offence in a way that the speaker did not intend, as when John Major tried to woo the sector. The then Government did not spot that the "make a difference" initiative would immediately be reduced to an acronym by the machinery of government and become the "MAD initiative". However, I am talking about much deeper language, usage and meaning. To communicate, it is necessary to understand the language of the listeners and what is behind the terminology in question. That is a big challenge to Government, and I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary takes it very seriously.
	That challenge is even greater than before, as we now have a family of loose and baggy monsters. There is considerable engagement between the charitable and the wider voluntary and community sectors and the co-operative and mutual sector and the burgeoning social enterprise sector. The rapid development of that sector offers tremendous opportunities. Let us not forget that we are talking about businesses that have to achieve success in a competitive market, as well as to deliver in respect of the values on which they were established.
	These sectors overlap in places, and the variety and energy are great. There is also engagement with the activity of volunteering—something that I regard as the "essential act of citizenship", and which is not just a part of the voluntary sector but which contributes across the piece, including to the public sector. Indeed, it is important to realise that there is a link between these ideas, the development of the wider third sector of overlapping entities and the growth of corporate social responsibility—and even the ideas of enlightened shareholder value that we discussed recently in the Chamber in relation to the Company Law Reform Bill.
	So in looking at the role of charities in the wider third sector, I warmly welcome three developments in particular. The first is the engagement between these sectors, in order to agree what they have in common and to develop a capacity to speak to Government with a single voice when appropriate. I stress the words "when appropriate" because such varied sectors have widely varied interests and agreeing where to agree cannot be allowed to be a substitute for a whole plethora of contacts and engagements with both national Government and local government across the whole piece. Having said that, the Third Sector Network's statement of principles is enormously important in that it provides a position statement that is necessary for dialogue with Government and sets out the importance of independence, and the focus on social justice, diversity, dignity and respect and on issues such as participation and empowerment—again, a theme stressed by the Prime Minister only last week.
	I will not go through the whole document, but it is important to recognise that sustainability is important and that accountability—a word that has come up time and again—is to wider humanity and to enduring values, rather than merely to the Government of the day. I hope to continue to play a part in nurturing a dialogue on this—I have had the privilege of taking part in some discussions—because it is good for all parts of the sector in question and good for Government that such discussion takes place. I pay tribute to the NCVO for nurturing the process, and to all the other players for coming to the table.
	Secondly, it is in this context that I earlier welcomed the Chancellor's initiative. Given the considerable overlap between different parts of the third sector and that the one thing they have in common is that they are driven by values, and given that the way that the Government treats them is often very significant, it is surely right to nurture a dialogue in pursuit of a level playing field where people can pursue their values through a business model or a charitable model, or an association or a partnership, or even through a company model as with the new community interest company.
	Thirdly, the Prime Minister's speech last week broke with tradition by starting a dialogue with both the wide third sector and business—together, and at the same time—on the nature and future of public service delivery. That really is joined-up thinking. I worry a little that some parts of Whitehall see the third sector merely as a vehicle for public service delivery. The sector does have a role in service delivery, and there is scope both for the sector to play a bigger role and for the sector itself to grow. But that is not the sector's whole job and, in the case of many existing organisations, it is not "what they're there for". The Government must be sensitive to those differences, too.
	I point back to the Thatcher era when the then Government failed to attract the private sector into the provision of social housing. In a panic, they sought instead to use the housing associations as a vehicle; that was like the friendly grip of a hungry boa constrictor. Many small organisations had to choose between very fast expansion, linked to a radical change in their ethos, or going out of existence altogether. Many were forced into being poor property developers and large-scale property managers, and lost their way. Later, many in the sector did find the way to combine values with that expanded role—it is now a mature and effective sector in its own right—but at the time, it was a case study for how government should not do things.
	By contrast, new vehicles that are created and designed for a specific purpose can use the experience of charities in the third sector, while meeting the aspirations of government. We are seeing that with foundation hospitals, which have embraced principles of co-operation and community ownership. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington for not only seeing, but seizing, that opportunity when he was Secretary of State for Health. I hope that the same will happen with trust schools, and in other fields such as regeneration and crime reduction.
	My point is that if the Government want to offer new roles to the sector, it is vital to do so through a partnership approach from the very beginning of policy development, and certainly at the design and delivery stages. Charities might be able to take on such roles in their existing form—some of the bigger ones certainly can—but in other cases, it might be a question of working with the sector to create new types of vehicle, and of being sensitive to those differences. Ministers need to recognise that this might take time, and officials need to be encouraged to develop the capacity for partnership working. Shortcuts do not work: they are damaging to both sides and lead to tears. Just producing a policy document does not create a relationship. Capacity has to be built, and relationships have to be worked at. Policies have to reflect relationships, rather than setting down requirements.
	This can be done and it can add value, but it is hard work and the relevant Government Departments have to work in new ways. Indeed, Ministers and officials have to be empowered to work in ways that break the mould, just as happened in the early days of the social exclusion unit, for example. Such things do happen in government, but for the future, they have to become the norm.
	In many ways, I have already presented the evidence for my third point, on which I shall be extremely brief. I just want to warn the Government and Parliament—and certainly the Opposition—that this is always going to be hard work. Does Whitehall yet speak the language? I doubt it, and I share the concerns expressed by John Cridland of the CBI at last week's conference. Supporting the charitable sector is not about paying lip service to motherhood and apple pie; rather, it is about hard work, engagement and dialogue. Indeed, it is more like the reality of motherhood and the job of baking an apple pie.
	Most charities exist because individuals have invested in them an extraordinary amount of personal time, energy and creativity. Rarely has that happened because someone planned and costed the job in advance and calculated that it will work. Mature organisations do become more calculating—they use business techniques—and hurrah for that. But most third-sector organisations and certainly most charities—at national and local level—can trace their history to somebody who was like a bumble bee. Nobody told the bumble bee that, technically, it cannot fly, so it does. Charitable endeavour has always been about saying, "Something must be done", and then setting out to achieve the impossible. That is why charity has to be nurtured, encouraged and believed in and its integrity protected. That is why the Government have been right to hasten slowly with this Bill, and to make sure that it is the right legislation for our times and for many years to come. That is why we must give it a warm welcome and debate the detail with great care, as well as with enthusiasm.

Andrew Mitchell: I am most grateful to be allowed to speak in this debate this afternoon, in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling that members of the shadow Cabinet may not "moonlight", so to speak, on issues from the Back Benches. I should explain to the House that I sat on the Joint Committee of both Houses set up to scrutinise this Bill in draft, and it is on that basis that I have sought to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Many Members in all parts of the House believe that the pre-legislative scrutiny process needs to be strengthened and used to a far greater extent, and the Joint Committee, which was chaired so ably by the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), did a service to the House in terms of the quality of such scrutiny. I am, of course, referring—as he did—to the staff of the House who staffed that Committee and to the many experts who appeared before us, but also to the great expertise of the other place, which, in contributing to that Committee, underlined the advantage of the non-elected principle. I hope and believe that our Committee performed a very useful task, and some of that benefit is on display in today's debate.
	As I said, the right hon. Member for Darlington did a really excellent job in chairing the Joint Committee. He tried to put some minor distance between himself and the conclusions reached, on the ground that he went off to another—rather less laudable—job, but he missed only one meeting and his spirit certainly brooded as we reached our conclusions. He kept us facing in the right direction, and it is perfectly clear that he is ideally suited to being the next deputy leader of the Labour party. He knows that I have some modest experience of leadership elections—on the losing side, admittedly—but if there is anything that the Opposition can do to help him, he has only to pick up the telephone.
	On the Government's reaction to our Committee's work, which is enshrined in the Bill, I congratulate them on accepting most of our recommendations. They deserve about seven and a half out of ten for their efforts today and I hope that, if they listen fair-mindedly to what has already been said in this debate and in another place, they will have done even better by the time that we reach Third Reading.
	Given that this entire process was set in motion by the Prime Minister's own strategy unit and progressed through a Joint Committee of both Houses, I was surprised to learn that the Government seem to have ignored a number of that Committee's recommendations, particularly bearing it in mind that it was chaired by the right hon. Member for Darlington—a senior and well-respected former Cabinet Minister, Blairite and close confidante of No. 10. Perhaps the Government need to hear again today some of the arguments that they appear to have rejected.
	The recommendations left out of the Bill that the Government have yet to see fit to include are relevant to both the charity sector and the British public, who are so generous with their support through donations not only of money, but of time and expertise. One of the most important points that our work on the Joint Committee reinforced was that Britain does have a charitable sector of which we should all be really proud. We have heard today from the Minister that there are more than 160,000 main charities on the Charity Commission's register. That figure is growing by almost 2,000 a year, and that is not the only upward trend. Between 1998 and 2000, for example, employment in the charitable sector grew by almost 7 per cent., which is a faster rate than in both the public and private sectors. In 2005, the total annual income was almost £38 billion—equivalent to more than £600 for every man, woman and child in the UK.
	However, people in Britain are as generous with their time as they are with their hard-earned cash. Home Office figures show that in 2003, more than 20 million people were involved in some kind of volunteering in the community, half of whom were involved in formal volunteering more frequently than once a month. Some 3 million volunteers do work for one or more registered charities, and such work is equal to 1.5 million whole-time equivalent jobs. It was estimated in 2000 that the value of unpaid work to charities was more than £15 billion a year.
	Baroness Scotland has stated:
	"The Government's three aims for the Bill remain. The first is to provide a legal and regulatory environment that will enable all charities, however they work, to realise their potential as a force for good in society. Secondly, we want to encourage a vibrant and diverse sector, independent of government. Thirdly, we want to sustain high levels of public confidence in charities through effective regulation."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 783.]
	Those aims have been affirmed by the Minister today. However, the Joint Committee had some serious concerns that have not been addressed. The first was that smaller charities should not be overburdened with regulation, but should be encouraged in a climate that promotes philanthropy. Secondly, the independence of the Charity Commission and the charities sector should not be compromised. Thirdly, the new definitions of charities and the removal of the presumption of public benefit should not hit private schools, hospitals and religious groups the hardest. Last, but certainly not least, the Committee was concerned about the ludicrous proposal that excepted charity status should be abolished for armed services mess and sports non-public funds—a proposal that should be removed in its entirety from the Bill. It is the rejection of certain of the Joint Committee's key recommendations covering those points that could prevent the Government from achieving all their stated and laudable aims.
	I shall deal first with the independence of the charities sector generally. Among charities and the general public alike, there is growing disquiet that in Lord Dahrendorf's words, the third sector has
	"become a semi-government sector of public life".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 938.]
	In his interesting speech, the right hon. Member for Darlington spoke of the importance of partnership between government and the charitable sector, and it is the importance of getting that balance right that I wish to flag up. There is a degree of ambivalence—on the one hand, the voluntary and charitable sector has an enviable record of providing outstanding care, but on the other, we are talking of a desire to see a thriving, independent charitable sector, which should not be dominated, fettered and generally taken over by the state. The Cabinet Office paper, "Private Action, Public Benefit" clearly defined the Government's objective as one of ever closer union, aiming to
	"enable the sector to become a more active partner with Government in shaping policy and delivery."
	That was the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. The Charity Commission, however, has made it quite clear that that approach is not a panacea. It warns:
	"Increased co-operation increases charities' reliance upon the State for funding and, in turn, creates a potential risk to charities' independence."
	Such a loss of independence, the commission says, could lead to bodies being
	"created with a stated purpose that is charitable, but with an unstated purpose that is concerned with giving effect to the wishes and policies of a governmental authority."
	The Charity Commission concludes:
	"It would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that a body of that kind was not really a charity at all. Instead of being set up for the stated charitable purpose, it would exist in fact for the purpose of securing the benefits of charitable status while carrying out the wishes and policies of the governmental authority."
	In fact, there are already 731 charities that have a local authority as a trustee. More worrying is the fact that for 595 of them, the local authority is the sole trustee. In response to that, one of the most important of our unanimous recommendations was in relation to the independence of the Charity Commission and the provision that it should exercise its powers
	"on behalf of the Crown"—
	an arcane form of words that means that the Charity Commission would be closely bound in to the Government, ministerial diktat and departmental governance. In the light of the Government's stated objective to encourage
	"a vibrant and diverse sector, independent of government"—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 783.]—
	it is incomprehensible that the Government have, as yet, failed to remove what was clause 4(1) of the draft Bill, which proposed that the Charity Commission would perform its functions
	"on behalf of the Crown."
	With that clause in place, the commission will continue to be, in effect, a Government Department, albeit a non-ministerial one. That means that it cannot appear to be fully independent of government. Witnesses before the Joint Committee warned of the risk of greater political interference and of prejudice to the commission's quasi-judicial functions—I draw the House's attention to paragraph 177 of the report. The Government's rejection of our recommendation does not adequately answer those concerns. As if to add insult to injury, the Government failed to adopt the Joint Committee's recommendation that the Charity Commission be more accountable to Parliament and its Committees and declined to give statutory force to a requirement for the commission to report to either House.
	A number of witnesses from whom the Committee took evidence expressed grave misgivings about the effect of such a proposal on the credibility of the Charity Commission. For example, in its evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, the Charity Law Association stated that if the commission
	"is a Government Department, then it is likely to lessen, rather than increase, public confidence in charities. It will be seen as susceptible to being used by the Government to further its own policies."
	It is important that the commission be accountable to Parliament rather than to the Crown. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations went even further, arguing that it was not enough for the Bill simply to stipulate that that the commission be answerable to Parliament, but that it must give at least some outline of how the mechanism of that accountability should operate in practice.
	Parliament would need to enforce regular and detailed monitoring of the finance well-being and the regulatory effectiveness of the Charity Commission. Speaking from my experience on the Joint Committee, I hope that the Home Affairs Committee will take up the recommendation that it hold an annual evidence session with the Charity Commission. I also hope that there can be a debate every year, in Government time, on the annual report of the Charity Commission in both Houses, as the Joint Committee suggested.
	My next point is on the introduction of a blanket public benefit test. At present, if an organisation's purposes lie within the three named heads of charitable purpose—the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion and the advancement of education—it is presumed to be acting in the public benefit, unless a positive reason for doubt is presented. In the Bill, it is proposed to change that presumption, requiring all bodies to show that they are acting in the public benefit, as defined in law, before they are granted charitable status. The reversal of the presumption of public benefit will primarily impact on private schools and hospitals and religious groups, which previously came under the three headings of the preamble to the legislation about which the right hon. Member for Darlington spoke so eloquently, but which now, as the House knows, must prove a public benefit.
	Although the Bill does nothing to override existing case law, so it will not change the definition of public benefit itself—it is inevitable that the requirement to demonstrate public benefit will make it harder both to register as a charity and to remain as such. Moreover, the nature of the legislative requirements will mean that charities will be subjected to ongoing public benefit checks. Inevitably, it will be the smaller charities that will bear the brunt of the legislation, which are the least able to deal with that sort of regulation in terms of both manpower and expertise.
	Ultimately, everything will turn on how the Charity Commission operates the public benefit test. One of the most valuable contributions that the Joint Committee was able to make, and where it had a positive effect on clarifying the thinking within the Home Office and the Charity Commission, was in causing them to produce what I believe we called a concordat on how that part of the legislation will be operated. However, that is no guarantee that the change to the public benefit test will not produce uncertainty and turbulence to educational and medical bodies, whose activities have long been regarded as for the public benefit.
	None the less, I urge the Government to stick to what has been agreed and what is in the Bill and to ignore the old Labour class warriors chuntering on the Government Back Benches and revving up to amend the Bill in that respect. Let us hope that the new arrangement will work out as most of us believe it should. In that sentiment, I have no doubt that I have the full support of the right hon. Member for Darlington.
	Lastly, I wish to join Lord Craig of Radley in his outrage at the intention to abolish excepted charity status for armed services mess charities. An excepted charity, as authorised by a 1965 statutory instrument, has no obligation to register with the Charity Commission, although it must still meet the requirements of the Charities Act 1993. The real concern must be that, in due course, the threshold for registration will be reduced from a turnover of £100,000, and that more and more small armed forces charities will be required to register and to come under the closer regulation of the Charity Commission.
	Excepted charities that choose not to register with the commission do not have to submit accounts, prepare and transmit annual reports, or complete annual returns. The rationale behind this reduced regulation is that accepted charities, such as the armed services charities, are those that are under the control of another body acting in a regulatory capacity. There are about 15,000 armed services funds, which are charities. They are spread across the three armed forces. Their purposes range from officers and sergeants' mess accounts to service, sporting and recreational activities. A defining characteristic of such funds is that they derive their income not from the public, but exclusively from military personnel.
	Ministers have assured the Grand Committee in the other place that those funds will not lose their charitable status. On Report, a Government amendment has included in the list of charitable purposes the promotion of efficiency in the armed forces of the Crown. However, that does not change the fact that an entirely superfluous bureaucratic burden will be added. It will be superfluous because the funds are more than adequately supervised by the Adjutant General. Far more so, I might add, than by the Charity Commission, which in the past has failed to satisfy the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. It caused the Joint Committee to express doubts as to its ability to meet the demands of the proposed wider remit. The commission has some way to go, and I sincerely hope that it will do so compellingly to demonstrate clearly, in today's parlance, that it is fit for purpose.
	The points that I have raised are minor but extremely important. They could make the Bill even better if they were included in the measure. I hope that the Government will reconsider them in the terms in which I have put them, and consider seriously including them in the Bill in Committee or on Report.
	I end where the right hon. Member for Darlington, the Chairman of the Joint Committee, ended his speech, in saying that the Bill is long overdue. It will make a tremendous contribution to updating charity law. It will help to ensure that the brand is protected and enhanced. There are tremendous opportunities, working with the charitable sector, to advance the objectives that we all hold within society. I hope that the Government will consider what I have said on these minor points to see whether the Bill can be made yet better.

David Lepper: First, I place on record that I am a trustee of a small local charity, Ardis, that is based in Brighton and Hove. It works on behalf of people with dementia in that area. I am also a member of the Association of Town Centre Management. The reason for that declaration might become clear when I say that I wish to concentrate my remarks on part 3, and particularly on street collections. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I have no hesitation in referring to the street collectors as chuggers—charity muggers. That is because of the outrageous activities of some paid street collectors in my constituency.
	I am talking of those who are paid on behalf of charities to stop people in the street and encourage them, on the spur of the moment, to sign up to regular direct debit payments to extremely worthy charities. I question whether that is the best way to encourage people to make thoughtful donations regularly to a charity. Perhaps payroll giving might be a better form of making donations. Nevertheless, a number of charities use the street collector method.
	When the Bill was in draft form, I think that the Government took the view that the problems caused by street collections could be dealt with by self-regulation. I welcome the terms of the Bill generally, as have others, and as debate on the Bill in draft form and in another place has continued, I am glad that there are now to be two stages of regulation in terms of collections. Those stages will not, it seems, harm in the least local charities that collect by holding the tin and not shaking it, or from time to time shaking it, but I hope that regulation will help to curb the chuggers.
	The two stages involve the charity obtaining a certificate from the charity commissioners, followed by a form of local authority licensing. I gather that the Government's proposal is to talk with local government representatives and councils about guidelines for the licensing system. Alongside that, a self-regulatory code of fundraising practice will be developed. That is all good, but when it comes to discussing the guidelines I hope that those involved will bear in mind the local experience in Brighton city centre, in my constituency. I am sceptical about the self-regulatory approach on the basis of that local experience.
	I shall quote from a letter about chuggers—I could quote from others—from one of my constituents, which was written in September 2005. It reads:
	"The sheer rudeness of these people is breathtaking...the money...would be better spent on helping those who the charity is trying to help"
	rather than on paying the collectors. It continues:
	"People should have the right to go about their business without being insulted for not being able to afford to give a monthly donation to charity."
	That, unfortunately, is not an unusual experience that I have had reported to me by one of my constituents. Others have told me of similar stories.
	Local traders have contacted me, particularly about the North Laine area of Brighton, where there are quite narrow streets and many small shops and businesses. Day after day and week after week, many charity collectors gather there. They stand close together and they block shop doorways. It is obvious from what is reported to proprietors that those collectors are intimidating potential customers. Sometimes they are offensive to those who ask them to move on.
	All that has happened despite attempts to negotiate a local code with the help of the Public Fund-Raisers Regulatory Association. I have raised with that association issues that have been discussed at meetings of the all-party group on charities and voluntary organisations, and there have been failed attempts with the association to sort out a local code of practice.
	On 16 March last year I presented a petition that was signed by 200 people, which states:
	"The Petitioners...declare that the Public Fund-Raisers Regulatory Association agreed to amend the voluntary code of practice in order to address traders' concerns...The Petitioners declare that operatives"—
	the collectors—
	"are ignoring the amendments"—
	that is to the code of practice—
	"as well as the standard requirements of the voluntary code of practice".
	That was the experience after attempts to resolve those issues voluntarily. I spoke to the chief executive of the Brighton and Hove business forum, Tony Mernagh only last week to ascertain the position now. He wrote in a letter of 22 June:
	"Chuggers continue to be as much of a problem as they ever were. Our attempts to control the nuisance factor by a voluntary agreement did not work. The PFRA were not prepared to agree to some of our requests and were half-hearted about asking their members to abide by the voluntary code and the vast majority do not."
	Tony Mernagh attached an 11-point code, most of which is based on a national voluntary code with some local amendments, a code which, he told me, is still, by and large, being flouted.
	For those reasons I have no hesitation, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, in referring to many street collectors as charity muggers. Far too many chuggers have been operating in my constituency and I hope that the proposals that are before us will help to regulate an unacceptable situation. When it comes to Ministers or officials working with local councils or local council representatives on guidelines for a licensing system, I hope that local experience will be considered. From what I read in newspapers, the experience in my constituency is not perhaps unusual because similar complaints are made elsewhere. As I have said, I hope that local experience will be taken into account when drawing up the guidelines to allow local authorities, in issuing licences, to have genuine powers to control the location and the frequency of collections and the numbers of collectors involved.
	I finish by repeating my earlier recommendation: people should think seriously about whether a spur-of-the-moment decision in the street to sign up to a regular donation to a charity is the best way to make such a donation. Payroll giving is surely a far better alternative.

James Duddridge: I fully support what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) said about chugging. While I cannot claim to have been a chugger, I have certainly been a shaker, and I am concerned that, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) I acted illegally. Having encouraged other shaking in Rochford and Southend, East, I hope that I did not fall foul of the Government and will not be arrested on my return to my constituency.
	Joking apart, my hon. Friend said that it is sometimes important to make a small difference. From the outset, may I say that I support the Bill, and welcome the changes to trusteeships that make it easier for people to contribute as trustees? However, following my intervention on the Minister, I am concerned that people with learning disabilities cannot contribute as trustees. Like a number of Members on both sides of the House, I offer my constituents, particularly organised groups, the opportunity to visit to the House of Commons and, a few weeks ago, I was pleased to receive a visit from the SHIELDS—supporting, helping, informing everyone with learning disabilities in Southend—parliament, which is a group of people with learning disabilities who have been directly elected as councillors to act as an advocacy group in Southend and, more widely, to represent the interests of people with learning disabilities. Last week, it adopted a constitution, but it was distressing for people who had been elected by their peer group to discover that they could not make a contribution as trustees. In fact, they were lumped into a single group with people with general mental incapacity. While those councillors have serious social problems, collectively they are a bright bunch and have a huge contribution to make. It is therefore deeply unfair that they should be thrown together with people who, under the Charities Act 1993, are convicted of offences including dishonesty and deception or who have become bankrupt.
	The SHIELDS parliament has got round the problem by using a provision in the constitution to appoint trustees. It states:
	"The Trustees have added responsibilities to safeguard the charity in order to benefit the Learning Disabled population of Southend, and to further the objects of the charity by facilitating their legal and moral wishes."
	Critically, it continues:
	"The wishes of the Learning Disabled population of Southend will be gathered by the Shields Parliament and communicated to the Trustees via elected parliamentary councillors."
	The SHIELDS councillors, who cannot act as trustees, have asked several members of the community, including me, to become trustees, and I should certainly like to do so, and urge people in Southend to support those directly elected representatives. It would be much better, however, if the councillors could be trustees themselves.
	The SHIELDS parliament and its facilitators have worked closely with the Charity Commission, so it is unacceptable that they should have had to resort to a rather cack-handed way round the problem, as mandating trustees to gather views via elected councillors is hardly the ideal solution. I therefore urge the Minister to take the opportunity offered in chapter 9 of the explanatory notes to table Government amendments or accept cross-party amendments to allow people with learning disabilities who can make a contribution to become trustees, particularly, but not exclusively, of charities that work with people with learning disabilities. I accept that a trustee organisation with a critical mass of people with learning disabilities is slightly more challenging from a legal perspective than general groupings, but both groupings are extremely important.
	Having made my main point, may I touch on other subjects? I am concerned about the removal of the presumption of public benefit, as it constitutes an attack on schools with charitable status. Members have talked about the direction of travel which, I believe, should encompass foundation hospitals, greater choice in education, and trust schools, and should lead us to the conclusion that more schools, not fewer, should have charitable status. I am concerned, too, about mega-charities that conduct large-scale operations. One cannot look through the appointments section of the big papers without finding jobs with attached salaries that, in some cases, are as large as that of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am concerned, not about the impact of professionalisation on charities' output, but about that career path, which is detached from reality.
	Unlike the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who is no longer in the Chamber, I remain concerned about the involvement of charities in political and campaigning activities. I do not wish to mount a general attack on charities, but I am reluctant, or certainly less willing, to give money to organisations such as Oxfam that do good work in Africa, where I have worked, and Christian Aid, because they have been involved in political activities or things that I perceive as political activities. Guidance would create greater confidence in what the Minister described as the charities brand.
	I have raised a number of subjects, but the one on which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to dwell is the question of trusteeships for people with learning disabilities—I would be more than happy to meet him with a delegation to discuss the issue. The SHIELDS parliament, which is a very good organisation, believes that it is unique—I suspect that there are other such organisations, but they have not been brought together—and it has made a good proposal. With the Minister's help in the Bill, perhaps we can improve its representation.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), who made a measured speech which, while based on local experience, had national implications on which we should all reflect. The highlight of our debate, however, was the moment when my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), at the end of a long and thoughtful speech, asked Ministers to satisfy themselves that the public benefit test, as applied by the Bill, will make a difference. In my brief and modest remarks, I should like to ask whether Ministers have satisfied themselves that it will be a rigorous test of public benefit.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) characterised some Labour Members as old-fashioned class warriors. I do not look at myself that way: I am a Yorkshireman who does not believe in "summat for nowt", and I think that all institutions that benefit from the public purse should justify themselves. Representing one of the United Kingdom's more rural constituencies, I like to think that I have my ear to the ground of middle England. When organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Age Concern ask for further clarification in the Bill, I sit up and take notice, and that is what I seek from Ministers.
	We have a dream team on the Front Bench. It is a great pity that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is not in the Chamber, as she gave me a great deal of good career advice when she was Chief Whip. Her talent for tact and diplomacy is known throughout the House, as is her closeness to No. 10, and those qualities will be important in securing the passage of the Bill. To complement her strengths, we are lucky to have a rising star in the Parliamentary Secretary, who is close to the Chancellor, speaks about the renewal of the Labour project and, indeed, social democracy, and has demonstrated great intellect in his interventions. I hope to persuade that dream team to just go a little further and ask the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington asked.
	I refer to the voice of middle England and what the Charity Commission is saying about the Bill. I attended the same briefing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) attended last week. I noted carefully the words of Andrew Hind, the chief executive of the regulator. He said that there was a worrying lack of clarity in the underlying case law. He certainly did not want inflexible wording in terms of a definition of public benefit on the face of the Bill, but he said that he would like clarification, possibly on the face of the Bill, about the application of this test.
	We have all seen the press release from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the words of its chief executive, Stuart Etherington. The NCVO says that, at present, the Bill extends the public benefit test to all charities on the basis of existing case law. However, it goes on, for charities that charge high fees for their services, this means that they will have to show only that the less well off are "not entirely excluded". This does not go far enough. Anyone able to benefit from a charity service must have a reasonable chance of doing so, says the NCVO. Stuart Etherington is quoted as saying:
	"Charities have long recognised the need to update charity law, and have pressed for this important legislation. The Charities Bill must protect and promote the charity 'brand', by making it clear that only those organisations that benefit the public can be charities."
	We have had a number of suggestions as to how the application of the public benefit test could be clarified in the Bill. The example from Scotland was given, and there are other examples. The noble Lord Phillips in the other place made a suggestion. I do not think that the fact that Scotland has passed one law and we may be about to pass another one can be entirely dismissed. For example, if, to take a completely random example, Fettes in Scotland was ruled not to be worthy of charitable status in Scotland under one regime, could it then apply in England under another regime, and perhaps up ship, and so on? One of the phrases that keeps coming up in many of these amendments concerns charges not being "unduly restrictive". That has some merit and should be considered by Ministers. After all, the alternative is simply to rely on case law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, whom I feel very close to on this issue, said that he did not think that it was a sufficient defence for, shall we say, private schools to claim public benefit just on the ground that they saved money from the public purse. But when one considers the only major case in this area in the last 40 years, one can draw precisely that conclusion—that public schools would have that defence. In 1967 the case of Re:Resch, concerning a private hospital run by nuns in Australia, was appealed to the Privy Council. Lord Wilberforce, in giving the judgment upholding the charitable status of the hospital, said:
	"It would be a wrong conclusion...to state that a trust for the provision of medical facilities would necessarily fail to be charitable merely because by reason of expense they could only be made use of by persons of some means".
	In other words, the level of charges did not matter. He goes on to justify that by saying that the judgment
	"results from the relief to the beds and the medical staff of the general hospital"—
	in other words, the saving from the public purse. Therefore, I urge Ministers that, if we are to meet the test set by my right hon. Friend, that the Bill should make a difference, we need to heed the words of the Charity Commission and the NCVO, not old-style class warriors, and look for further clarification in the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend and the Joint Committee went much further in one of their musings than I would choose to do and said:
	"Nonetheless we believe that the Government should consider reviewing the charitable status of independent schools and hospitals with a view to considering whether the best long term solution might lie in those organisations ceasing to be charities but receiving favourable tax treatment in exchange for clear demonstration of quantified public benefits."
	I would not go that far, but I urge Ministers to look at the question of the application of the public benefit test.
	Perhaps my right hon. Friend was reacting to some of the evidence before the Committee. A former public school headmaster, Dr. Anthony Seldon, said:
	"There are two very different kinds of independent school."
	I think that he is right. There are what he characterised as the small minority: what my right hon. Friend referred to as up to 50 per cent. of private schools, according to figures from the Independent Schools Council. Dr. Seldon referred to
	"the small minority which are very wealthy which are doing extremely nicely...and which...I do not think are very innovative. They look after themselves and they pay lip service to odd charitable things, but they are a self-perpetuating oligarchy and...they have great wealth, and I think they should be doing much more".
	That is the voice of someone with knowledge of the private sector.
	We are talking about £100 million of public money. We are talking about giving 80 per cent. relief on uniform business rates; tax relief on bank deposits and income from investments; the ability to claim back tax paid by benefactors; and exemption from VAT payments on fees—not inconsiderable matters. This test should be a rigorous test.
	There are two possible scenarios. I hope that my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, will listen to the debate and the moderate voices of the NCVO, the Charity Commission and his many friends on the Labour Back Benches who wish him well in his future career, and consider adding to the Bill with regard to the application of public benefit. If he does that, he could create a progressive consensus in the House. Not only those on the Government Benches, but in this instance at least the Liberal Democrats may well be part of that progressive consensus, and we could be faced with a Conservative party which, remarkably today, is to the right of the Independent Schools Council in that it insists that the public benefit test should not apply to private schools. That is a remarkable position. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has noticed this, and that position may well change by Third Reading. Even so, I think that the Conservative Opposition would oppose such an amendment. Such a progressive consensus could be created. The alternative is probably for an amendment in line with the wishes of NCVO and the Charity Commission to be moved, perhaps from the Government or the Liberal Democrat Benches. Then we would have the unedifying spectacle of those on the Government Benches being divided on the issue. If the renewal of the Government was one of my central concerns, I know which of those two political scenarios I would be aiming for.

Tom Levitt: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). We have many interests in common; unfortunately, class war is not one of them, so I will return later to see where we disagree on the issue of public benefit.
	I rise as the chair of the all party group on the community and voluntary sector, a Home Office-appointed chair of the Community Development Foundation, and a former trustee of a major national charity, to welcome the Bill, which has had more than its fair share of scrutiny over quite a long time, as a number of hon. Members have said. But it is a little rich to hear protestations from Opposition Members about the time that the Bill has taken. They will recall that before the 2005 general election, the Bill was one of those that the Opposition was asked to co-operate with in order to give it a fair wind to complete its parliamentary stages before that election, on the ground that it was relatively uncontroversial. They declined, and that was their right as an Opposition, but that meant that the process had to start again. That is why it is now some six years since the strategy unit report was commissioned to consider the relationship with the voluntary sector in its wider sense. That is why it has taken six years for us to reach this point. Clearly, we are now approaching the end of the process, and I am sure that we will come out with a Bill that we will all be pleased to work with and see implemented.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has said—I think that I have read the same report as him—the public strongly support the work of the voluntary sector. For example, 88 per cent. of people believe that charities are well managed and spend their funds wisely, while 84 per cent. of people claim that they have implicit trust in the activities of the best known charities.
	The public misunderstand some aspects of the sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has referred to the statistic that while 97 per cent. of people know that Oxfam is a charity, only 15 per cent. of people know that Tate Modern is a charity. The Charity Commission report also states that 90 per cent. of people say that they have received no assistance or advice from a charity, although 75 per cent. of them actually have received assistance or advice. I suspect that that is because people have received what they regard as professional and sound advice, which they do not believe could come from a charity.

Gary Streeter: Being a lawyer was a proper job, was it not? What did the hon. Gentleman do?
	I used to advise start-up businesses and charities on organisation as a company limited by shares, guarantee, trust and so on. Would it not be great to have one simple, cohesive and straightforward organisational structure that most new charities will adopt? That is a sensible suggestion, and I hope that it becomes fashionable and popular. I hope that investment and effort will be put into producing off-the-shelf templates, which small organisations can pick up to organise their businesses with little delay or cost.
	We heard some excellent speeches today. The Minister for the Cabinet Office introduced the Bill in a measured way, as befits legislation of this kind that has wide support. She gave a number of reassurances about how the public benefit test might apply to organisations already benefiting from the assumption of public interest. We must wait to see whether they pan out, but it was reassuring to hear of her belief—I paraphrase—that all, or almost all, independent schools, hospitals and religious organisations ought to pass the public benefit test. I invite the Minister to intervene if she wishes to clarify that.
	The Minister also said that each case would be considered and judged on its merits. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he winds up the debate, how that process will work. We have talked about 190,000 charities. What is the time scale for a case-by-case assessment? It seems to me that it would be a huge job.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made a typically powerful speech. As is his shadow ministerial responsibility, he drew attention to some of the pitfalls that will have to be considered carefully in Committee. He spoke of the difficulties and costs that will be incurred by many existing charities on which will fall the onus of proof that they benefit the public. That process must be clarified. My hon. Friend called for a light touch in regulation, and for accountability. We do not oppose the public benefit test, but as Members in all parts of the House have said today, it represents a controversial and significant change. We are right to probe the Government to confirm that they have thought through the new system, and that it will be introduced with a measure of insight and wisdom.
	The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)—who has not yet returned from what I am sure has been an enjoyable evening—chaired the Joint Committee, and the whole House owes him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he did so. He treated us to his experience of these matters. It might be said that he rolled out his progressive credentials at the same time, possibly with half an eye on the future, but we shall see what happens in that regard. He spoke of an opportunity for the charitable sector to offer high quality services and to embark on a real partnership with the private and public sectors. That is exactly what the Conservatives want.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, supported the Bill and brought to bear some specialist knowledge from his background, which informed and assisted debate. I think that he slightly misunderstood what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight had said, but we were treated to the good news that the Liberal Democrats had unveiled a new policy tonight—a policy of consistency. That is warmly welcomed by the whole House. The hon. Gentleman made important points about the need for clarity, especially in the Bill's definitions and the Charity Commission's guidelines. That was an important reminder, to which I shall return.
	The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) also has great experience in this field. He spoke of the vibrant and important partnership between the Government and the voluntary and charitable sector. In giving the Bill a warm welcome, he recognised that removing the assumption of public benefit was a courageous step—taking our minds back, perhaps, to the great "Yes, Minister" programmes—but he said that it was the right thing to do, thus nailing his colours to the Government's mast. He called for clarity on the public benefit test—I think that the whole House wants the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that important point—and said that the Charity Commission should listen to Parliament. That is crucial—Parliament has expressed itself very firmly, and we want the commission to listen to us. I am one of those who have said, on the basis of our experience in our constituencies and our former lives in the real world, that the commission has not always impressed people by the degree to which it listens and proceeds flexibly, without bureaucracy. We look for better performance in the future. The right hon. Gentleman advised his Front Bench not to be too prescriptive in its definitions, and spoke of the changing and diverse nature of today's voluntary and charitable sector.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) spoke with great authority, having served on the Joint Committee. He gave the Government 7.5 out of 10—which was pretty charitable, for him—for listening to the Committee and incorporating some of its recommendations, to which I have already referred. The right hon. Member for Darlington has just returned. I know that he has been engaged in important business. As I was saying, my hon. Friend gave the Government 7.5 out of 10, but he hoped for a higher score as we approach Third Reading. He was particularly concerned about certain recommendations that were missing from the Bill in its current form—for instance, those stating that regulation should involve a light touch, that the independence of the charitable sector should not be compromised, that schools, hospitals and religious bodies should not bear the brunt of the removal of the assumption of public benefit, and about the recommendation relating to the removal of excepted status from armed services' mess charities. He urged the Government to ensure that those recommendations were incorporated during the Bill's passage.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) brought to bear his experience of town centre management in his thoughtful speech about charitable collectors—I did not know that they are often described as "chuggers"—and the undesirable and offputting nature of some of their activity. He expressed scepticism about self-regulation in that context. Given his experience, the House should take account of what he said, and we should give more thought to the matter in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) expressed grave concern about access for people with learning disabilities to trusteeships of local organisations. The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say something about that. My hon. Friend made his point powerfully and forcefully. He also expressed concern about large charities spending too much on salaries and political campaigning, and said that more guidance for some would make the public more confident.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made one of his typically concise speeches. Indeed, it was so concise that I missed it when I nipped out briefly, but I know that he described his Front Bench as a dream team, which is an interesting concept. He also—importantly—called for the public benefit test to be tightened, an issue to which we will no doubt return in Committee.
	The hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), on the basis of his experience and background, described the tremendous contribution of a wide variety of charities in his constituency. He referred particularly to progress in recent years by, for instance, the Council for Voluntary Services in his area. He illustrated the difficulty of regulating in the charitable sector by giving the example of a group of people who were moved by the plight of some children in Nepal, and set up a charity to do something about it. They stand alongside Oxfam, which has been doing such things for ever, and other great British charities. We have a single system that regulates all of them, and flexibility is very important. I am sure that the Minister took that on board.
	The hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) made the important point that all that glisters is not gold. It is no good our thinking that all charities are wonderful and always make wise decisions. The House was moved and concerned to learn of the plight of the hon. Lady's constituents in Dresden house, about which she made some powerful points.
	The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) spoke warmly about the role of the voluntary sector. One of his important points was that it is not necessarily true that every voluntary organisation would benefit from joining the state sector. He mentioned the air ambulance service, which we also have in my part of the world. It is sometimes right for such services to be outside the state sector, but more clarity, support and guidance from that sector would sometimes be welcome.
	We had a good-natured and informative debate. I want to focus briefly on three issues. The end of the presumption of the public benefit test is controversial. It is a significant change for many organisations that have enjoyed that presumption for hundreds of years. We do not know what guidelines the Charity Commission will produce to help people decide what is and is not in the public interest. It has already produced some guiding principles, but it is quite capable of changing those. We do not know what the final guidelines will look like, so this is very much a step in the dark. It is imperative for the House to have as much information as possible about the nature of the guidelines according to which the industry will operate before the House makes its final decisions on Report and Third Reading. If there was a common theme on both sides of the House, it was the need for clarity and certainty, especially for well-established organisations that need to know what hurdles they have to jump to ensure that they are operating for the public benefit.